tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.comments2018-04-13T05:42:40.147-07:00Reading SubtlyDennis Junkhttps://plus.google.com/108209043651974272541noreply@blogger.comBlogger386125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-21601403329012512802018-01-04T09:09:41.041-08:002018-01-04T09:09:41.041-08:00Perhaps, but you&#39;ll never know unless you actu...Perhaps, but you&#39;ll never know unless you actually read the post--I mean, beyond the first few paragraphs. Who knows? You might learn something. Dennis Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826244501737767190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-63598357241690714912018-01-03T16:21:41.433-08:002018-01-03T16:21:41.433-08:00“Prepubescent boys, this and several other studies...“Prepubescent boys, this and several other studies confirm, tend to be highly tribal.&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;So do conservatives.”<br /><br />So do liberals. Your article proves it. I suspect that you aren’t happy with Dr. Haidt’s results, hence your critique.<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18179043999224806652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-80243753268902610932017-11-11T16:06:29.888-08:002017-11-11T16:06:29.888-08:00I&#39;m willing to take Haidt at his word re his i...I&#39;m willing to take Haidt at his word re his intentions for the research and this resulting book. Cultivating righteousness is certainly a higher calling. I&#39;m more interested in our political disagreements than our conflicts based in religion, and my impression from reading and scanning many reviews and discussions on the book is that it finds a most approving audience among conservatives who are always eager to laud conversion of a liberal to conservatism. Haidt has described himself as a liberal who became a conservative when, deep in his research, he discovered that conservatives have a better understanding of human nature. I come away with the sense (intuition?) that this book may make conservatives more comfortable with their prejudices. <br /><br />C.L.HerndonChuck Herndonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06772981863788304539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-91403366082791935342017-09-17T12:44:45.669-07:002017-09-17T12:44:45.669-07:00You might find it interesting that, according to o...You might find it interesting that, according to one study, not all of Haidt&#39;s moral foundations are even intrinsic to a universal human nature. He argues that liberals are WEIRD (western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic). And so liberals are somehow lacking. But he misses two points. <br /><br />First, even though most Americans don&#39;t identify as liberal, a large number of polls over the years consistently show that most Americans hold fairly liberal positions on most major issues (gun control, women&#39;s rights, progressive taxation, environmental regulations, economic fairness, etc.), especially compared to most people in the world. Second, all Americans (including American conservatives) are WEIRD in the larger global context. <br /><br />His research being based on subjects in a WEIRD society, his moral foundations are articulated according to WEIRD biases. He forgets to factor in his own WEIRDness. To whatever degree his arguments do or don&#39;t apply WEIRD societies, he never even attempts to make a strong evidence-based argument that they apply to non-WEIRD societies. He makes a lot of assumptions without justifying them, such as assuming that moral foundations should be primarily defined according and limited to American conservative ideology.<br /><br />https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263492817_The_relevance_of_nomadic_forager_studies_to_moral_foundations_theory_Moral_education_and_global_ethics_in_the_twenty-first_century<br /><br />&quot;Moral foundations theory (MFT) proposes the existence of innate psychological systems, which would have been subjected to selective forces over the course of evolution. One approach for evaluating MFT, therefore, is to consider the proposed psychological foundations in relation to the reconstructed Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness. This study draws upon ethnographic data on nomadic forager societies to evaluate MFT. Moral foundations theory receives support only regarding the Caring/harm and Fairness/cheating foundations but not regarding the proposed Loyalty/betrayal and Authority/subversion foundations. These latter two proposed foundations would seem to reflect the historical classic assumptions of modernity, involving self-interest, competition, individualism, hierarchy, authority and so forth. Studying the ethical dimensions of nomadic forager societies can highlight our biases about the foundations of morality, some of which may be steeped in particularist Western political and social traditions. Some recent developments from cosmopolitanism are discussed as an alternative evolving worldview that parallels nomadic forager ethos.&quot;<br /><br />benjamindavidsteelehttps://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-51072525976898274042017-06-23T09:50:08.231-07:002017-06-23T09:50:08.231-07:00Nice article. From this perspective, you could say...Nice article. From this perspective, you could say the the &quot;illusion of the self&quot; that Dzogchen aims to uncover is this conviction we have that consciousness and &quot;my biography&quot; are either identical or two inseparable facets of the same thing. As you&#39;ve seen, being free of this is indeed valuable. (BTW, the tradition that requires lots of hard work is Vipassana, not Dzogchen).Adityahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-74428138530673780612017-02-22T12:57:47.634-08:002017-02-22T12:57:47.634-08:00I think there is more force to this argument then ...I think there is more force to this argument then we might be inclined to consider. I&#39;m not saying that reform efforts are doomed. But, as Bayesian rationalists, we are compelled to accept that most ambitious reform efforts are not easily achievable. I&#39;m not suggesting that efforts to reduce injustice are worthless or that outcomes are wholly determined by genetics. But one must accept that these tiny strands that contain the instructions for all life are leashes that only have a certain amount of slack. <br /><br />I&#39;m not suggesting that people shouldn&#39;t be thought of as individuals. Most traits are probabilistic distributions over populations. But many of the current inequalities we are dealing are intimately tied with these distributions. As a simple example, I would point to the work of Harvard economist Roland Fryer, who found that many disparities between black adults and white adults disappear after adjusting for educational attainment at age 14. Educational attainment is related with highly heritable characteristics like IQ and conscientiousness. In many cases, then, the people with the capacity to succeed in modern societies are already succeeding. It&#39;s true that there are some facets of society in which racism and discrimination are very real problems. The criminal justice system is one such example. But, in general, in trying to understand the root of a lot of modern problems within certain populations, we&#39;re inevitably forced to recognize that a lot of it really does come down to bum luck in the form of a bad combination of genes.<br /><br />I think there are avenues available for policies to bridge some of the gaps. But most research in psychometry and behaviour genetics suggests that we shouldn’t be optimistic about these policies. There is no known method of improving IQ. Similarly, personality research suggests that it&#39;s quite difficult to change a person&#39;s personality. And then you have the added difficulty of trying to ensure improvements are permanent. Here you run into the problem of trying to control environments that are significantly genetically determined (people adjust their environments in order to jive with their predispositions). <br /><br />This is just a long way of saying the new biosciences make it clear that a lot of reform efforts are pure hubris. And that is a scary though indeed. <br /><br />Personally, I agree with you about people being equally important in the relevant moral sense. But I do think there is a very real possibility that people will use this research to draw moral conclusions about segments of society. Although I am loathe to make this point, I think it is important to recognize that we are not that far away from a time when eugenic attitudes were mainstream and we should not imagine ourselves to be so much more sophisticated than those who held such attitudes (many intellectual luminaries of the 20th century were committed eugenicists, and although few endorsed coercion, I think there is something to be said about this idea&#39;s power).<br /><br />I want to make it clear that I support of bioscientific research in these areas. To paraphrase Philip Dick, the truth will remain what it is, even if we stop believing in it. It&#39;s better to know than not. All I want to emphasize is the fact that we must be careful in the way we understand this research and the way we use it. It is easy for us to be impartial about quantum physics because it doesn’t affect our conception of ourselves in an obvious way. But this research will directly affect how we think about ourselves, and that is why we need to be vigilant to ensure this research (which - I can&#39;t emphasize this enough - I think is very important and must continue, even in those areas where the research is wont to produce results that make us uncomfortable) is interpreted responsibly.Saroosh Wattoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14959996072374083255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-7660063352354064422017-02-22T08:54:19.832-08:002017-02-22T08:54:19.832-08:00“Wade constantly stresses that there is no necessa...“Wade constantly stresses that there is no necessary link between genetic science and the structure of society.” <br />That’s not exactly what he’s stressing. In fact, he argues much to the contrary. His point is that there’s no necessary link between genetic science and our policies toward members of different groups. While there may be average group differences evident in something like test scores, we can still agree that in principle every individual deserves to be treated as, well, an individual (not as a member of that group).<br />“For example, the fact that certain groups on average have lower IQs, coupled with the growing complexity of modern societies, seems to ineluctably lead to the conclusion that these groups are fundamentally maladaptive. And if you accept that view, then you&#39;re left with a strong sense of being stuck.”<br />We’re talking about average differences that appear when we aggregate countless results; these average differences tell us next to nothing about any particular individual. And the differences aren’t large enough to suggest that we’re somehow stuck in our current state of inequality. There’s still plenty to be done—or at least tried—in the realms of education and poverty reduction, and we have lots of evidence to suggest those efforts could potentially bear fruit. <br />Plus, there’s no denying discrimination plays a role in diminishing the prospects of people from certain groups. Let’s work to end that. <br />“After all, much of the argumentative force for moral egalitarianism (i.e. the idea that everybody ‘matters’ in a roughly equal sense) has come from the idea that, at least in some respects (like cognitive abilities, for example), humans are fundamentally alike. What other persuasive arguments can we muster for moral egalitarianism?”<br />This is a standard trap of postmodern reasoning, the idea that if human nature is at all tied to genes or biology, then reform efforts will inevitably fail. This is based on a misunderstanding of biology’s role in behavior. I can posit one population has a greater average proclivity toward violence, say, without suggesting that efforts to reduce violence within that population are pointless. The fact that genes play a role by no means suggests a fixity of outcomes, especially with something as complex as behavior. <br />Here’s my argument for the fair treatment of individuals. Our tests and measures are extremely limited—IQ doesn’t control for impoverished environments as a factor, for instance—and anyway it’s not clear intelligence could or should be tied directly to moral worth. Wouldn’t vastly more intelligent aliens (or machines) be obligated to recognize us stupid humans as moral beings? <br />Not only are our tests limited; our personal judgments based on our own perceptions are even worse. We have too many biases. And we have to extend a great deal of effort to think in a reasoned, evidence-driven way. <br />Therefore, it’s best to error on the side of fairness, to assume everyone is equally deserving of just treatment. While this basic principle may lead to silly behaviors in a small number of specific circumstances, the society as a whole will be much better off when this and similar principles are upheld.Dennis Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826244501737767190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-53238238080739592382017-02-21T22:41:38.426-08:002017-02-21T22:41:38.426-08:00Overall, a very balanced review. However, I want t...Overall, a very balanced review. However, I want to tepidly advance the argument that critics who see racism in this research may not be completely wrong. Let me explain.<br /><br />I don&#39;t think the science of individual differences intrinsically lends itself to one interpretation over another. However, we can use popular social attitudes and professed norms to understand likely interpretations. I think many people will viscerally reject this research as wrong. But among those who are open to this research, there is a strong temptation to draw what may seem like very obvious conclusions. Wade constantly stresses that there is no necessary link between genetic science and the structure of society. However, if you accept the results of genetic research and studies in individual differences psychology, then you&#39;re left with a rather dim view of whether we can actually achieve much more in the way of a just society. <br /><br />Now to be clear, I accept all of this research as true. In fact, I would defend most of the hypotheses Wade advances that you seem to be a bit more skeptical of based on ongoing advances in this field, which seem to be strengthening the basic narrative he has drawn out. What I am saying, though, is that the problem of interpreting and applying ongoing research in genetics, psychometry, evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology is much more daunting then it might seem at first glance. For example, the fact that certain groups on average have lower IQs, coupled with the growing complexity of modern societies, seems to ineluctably lead to the conclusion that these groups are fundamentally maladaptive. And if you accept that view, then you&#39;re left with a strong sense of being stuck. <br /><br />There is a good reason why efforts to create just societies have traditionally been associated with flexible views of human nature. The mismatch problem that I&#39;m describing above is something that probably wont go away. So what can we do then? It&#39;s hard to say, but there definitely becomes a strong sense of resignation that takes over. The only other solutions seem to involve speculative technologies (or maybe not so speculative, given the rate of technological progress) like embryo selection and gene editing. However, I suspect I&#39;m not the only person who viscerally recoils when confronted by the idea of such technology.<br /><br />So what do we do? Although the strong egalitarian project (i.e. the idea that people could be more or less equal in all important respects) was from its inception ill-starred, ongoing evolutionary research really challenges the entire egalitarian project as a whole, extending even to the idea of moral egalitarianism. After all, much of the argumentative force for moral egalitarianism (i.e. the idea that everybody &quot;matters&quot; in a roughly equal sense) has come from the idea that, at least in some respects (like cognitive abilities, for example), humans are fundamentally alike. What other persuasive arguments can we muster for moral egalitarianism?<br /><br />I have no answers to any of questions. I only know that the cultural and ethical questions we now have to come to grips with are extremely uncomfortable and are not likely to be solved easily.Saroosh Wattoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14959996072374083255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-14993952748772547222017-02-16T07:12:18.340-08:002017-02-16T07:12:18.340-08:00Hey Saroosh,
I&#39;m loath to recommend against an...Hey Saroosh,<br />I&#39;m loath to recommend against any novel for ideological reasons. And I&#39;ve also greatly enjoyed several works with postmodern inspiration and devices (&quot;Fight Club&quot;!). And I wholeheartedly, unhesitatingly recommend Coetzee&#39;s &quot;Disgrace&quot;; it&#39;s simply a great novel. <br /><br />My complaint is with the anti-science stance and the brain-dead identity politics postmodern works are so often made to serve. (Video recommendation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q).<br /><br />That said, many postmodern authors--including DF Wallace--aren&#39;t just anti-science; they&#39;re anti-story. One of the qualities of great fiction is its ability to induce narrative transport, i.e. to immerse readers in the story. Pomos think they&#39;re being clever by &quot;breaking the fourth wall&quot; and casting you out of the story on purpose. Wallace does this with his cartwheeling, backflipping prose, which I remember one critic compared to walking through setting concrete. These writers are trying to be profound by reminding us their work is just a story--suggesting that maybe other elements of our storied world are fictional as well. Profound indeed... for a third grader. <br /><br />Often postmodern writing simply substitutes an intellectual exercise (usually pointless) for an aesthetic experience (i.e. immersion in the narrative). But what&#39;s interesting is how often devices intended to cast you out of the story actually serve to pull you in even more deeply--this to me is postmodernism disproving its own premises, which makes me happy, and yet is still oddly postmodern. <br /><br />As for Infinite Jest, I tried it once but quickly abandoned it. I prefer Proust if I want intricate prose, but mainly I prefer the likes of Ian McEwan, Hilary Mantel, Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, etc.<br /><br />I hope this answers your question. If you do read Infinite Jest, I&#39;d love to hear your take. <br />Thanks for taking the time to comment,<br />DennisDennis Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826244501737767190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-66107228925905317352017-02-15T20:18:17.637-08:002017-02-15T20:18:17.637-08:00I skimmed the part of your discussion involving &q...I skimmed the part of your discussion involving &quot;Disgrace&quot; because it&#39;s been on my reading list for a while. However, given the preceding discussion, I&#39;m kind of curious about whether you would recommend the book and whether you would recommend Coetzee&#39;s work more generally. <br /><br />I&#39;m also somewhat curious about a broader thread that you weave throughout your blog, namely your dissatisfaction with postmodernism. I&#39;ve never taken a literature course through a university, so my exposure to postmodernism has mostly occurred in philosophy lectures (most of my profs fit into the analytic tradition, which has close ties with computer science and mathematics, so they all most all have nothing good to say about continental philosophy more generally). However, I have read and enjoyed a few books that I&#39;m told are vaguely influenced by postmodern thought (I read &quot;The Sympathizer&quot; by Viet Thanh Nguyen and &quot;The Orphan Master&#39;s Son&quot; by Adam Johnson). I&#39;m wondering if I should invest effort in such literature. For example, would you suggest picking up a copy of DFW&#39;s &quot;Infinite Jest&quot;?Saroosh Wattoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14959996072374083255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-47395697122338849682016-08-04T16:48:14.045-07:002016-08-04T16:48:14.045-07:00Thank You again for this insightful review. I just...Thank You again for this insightful review. I just started Greene&#39;s book and so far it too is brilliant.<br />I am especially waiting if he has anything to say about punishing: how do we psychologically &quot;measure&quot; what is appropriate amount of suffering for an offender, for example. Also I expect to find something to think about the question of how do we &quot;decide&quot; what is an appropriate amount of altruism that we expect from other people; why don&#39;t we require more, why do we settle for so little, except in exceptional situations, when standards raise and the normal everyday things are not anymore morally irrelevant/indifferent. If you are a doctor, for example, and there has been a big train accident near your house, people expect you to get out and help victims, and people would be angry if you stayed home watching tv (from your expensive couch made of some dead animal raised in terrible conditions) and eating chocolate (gathered by underpaid and exploited Africans)... Which is for some reason ok thing to do in normal circumstances. Still I think most people know by experience that to require the highest moral standards from oneself and from others often leads to only nauseating and rude law-mindedness, useless worshipping of false god of duty.<br />Osmo Tammisalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334107132674790010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-28807324180444917512016-06-22T19:40:45.278-07:002016-06-22T19:40:45.278-07:00Sorry, the other Westermarck is of course Ethical ...Sorry, the other Westermarck is of course Ethical relativity (not Moral subjectivity...), stupid me.Osmo Tammisalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334107132674790010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-86915637278678957572016-06-22T17:35:39.302-07:002016-06-22T17:35:39.302-07:00Just read your take on Haidt&#39;s RM book. Again ...Just read your take on Haidt&#39;s RM book. Again an excellent analysis (even though I don&#39;t think we need group selection to explain human moral emotions for example - I handle the issue quite thoroughly in one of my books (sadly in Finnish only)). Anyway, next I&#39;ll read your critique on Harris, Boehm and Pinker, can&#39;t wait. (And if I may, I have a suggestion if morality still interests you: Edvard Westermarck&#39;s &quot;Origin and development of moral ideas&quot; or shorter one from Westermarck: &quot;Moral subjectivity&quot;. Osmo Tammisalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334107132674790010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-62661539868579173412016-06-21T05:47:59.991-07:002016-06-21T05:47:59.991-07:00It&#39;s getting quite a bit of traffic, but yours...It&#39;s getting quite a bit of traffic, but yours is the first response so far. So I&#39;d wager she hasn&#39;t seen it. I&#39;d love to get her take. Dennis Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826244501737767190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-26864265499093821082016-06-20T17:12:40.546-07:002016-06-20T17:12:40.546-07:00Thank You for this excellent analysis. I was very ...Thank You for this excellent analysis. I was very pleased to find that Segerstråle quote. Keep up the good work, have to check your earlier stuff too. Did you by the way get any responses to this Shaw article? Has she seen it?Osmo Tammisalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334107132674790010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-27985389295763809102016-06-06T00:37:10.122-07:002016-06-06T00:37:10.122-07:00What a great story! I very much enjoyed the read! ...What a great story! I very much enjoyed the read! Lesa Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02651651474033726158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-38457928996402350882015-12-07T08:55:26.120-08:002015-12-07T08:55:26.120-08:00I hope to have the next installment published in F...I hope to have the next installment published in February. I really appreciate the encouragement. Dennis Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826244501737767190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-40018538488920539302015-12-06T07:41:05.542-08:002015-12-06T07:41:05.542-08:00When will there be more to read?When will there be more to read?bloggermbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11392392869002507013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-43854947668407375792015-09-26T19:28:33.280-07:002015-09-26T19:28:33.280-07:00This is one of the most interesting, educational, ...This is one of the most interesting, educational, and well written reviews I&#39;ve ever read. Great work. AndyLeeParkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03008774996358233378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-13042552973169663882015-09-26T19:27:51.117-07:002015-09-26T19:27:51.117-07:00This is one of the most interesting, educational, ...This is one of the most interesting, educational, and well written reviews I&#39;ve ever read. Great work. AndyLeeParkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03008774996358233378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-83266530275470397382015-09-01T10:32:54.631-07:002015-09-01T10:32:54.631-07:00Excellent stuff.Excellent stuff.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05867144125004002301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-64549634970239614952015-08-05T18:50:30.124-07:002015-08-05T18:50:30.124-07:00I just finished reading &#39;The Righteous Mind&#3...I just finished reading &#39;The Righteous Mind&#39; and thought it was brilliant, well-written and insightful. That said, your critique was spot on! Haidt infers that insufficient regard for loyalty, authority and the sacred is some sort of deficiency in liberal moral intuitions. I disagree. In my opinion it is the purposeful and disciplined muting of those aspects of moral intuition, and conversely giving primacy to care, fairness and liberty from oppression that defined the Enlightenment and all the myriad positive social changes that followed (You know, all the stuff we call ‘progress’.) <br />It was precisely the liberal moral matrix at work in the great thinkers, heroes and champions that pushed, fought, suffered torture and died in order for Western Civilization to move from the Dark Ages of patriarchal, church-sanctioned, repressive monarchies devoid of social mobility to the relatively egalitarian democracies of today. All along the bloody way it was the conservative moral matrix at work in those who fought tooth and nail against these changes because the changes were seen as rebellious betrayals of sacred tradition and God. Let’s take a sampling of just four of these changes and try to identify what moral matrix was at work on either side of the fight. <br />American Revolution - Giving primacy to FAIRNESS and LIBERTY, this was a LIBERAL rebellion against the long-standing imperial CONSERVATIVE TRADITION and SACRED AUTHORITY of a monarchy ruling over its LOYAL subjects. <br />Emancipation - Giving primacy to FAIRNESS, CARE and LIBERTY, this was a LIBERAL rejection of the Bible-backed SACRED TRADITION of slavery wherein pious CONSERVATIVE white Christians imposed racial subjugation onto African-Americans who were expected to maintain LOYALTY to their masters. <br />Women’s Suffrage - Giving primacy to FAIRNESS and LIBERTY, this was a LIBERAL fight for voting rights against the CONSERVATIVE Bible-backed SACRED TRADITION of maintaining male power and AUTHORITY in a patriarchal society. <br /> Civil Rights - Giving primacy to FAIRNESS and LIBERTY, this was a LIBERAL fight for equal treatment under the law for voting and public access against the howling objections of Southern CONSERVATIVE Christian whites who saw racial equality and integration as a grave violation of Southern AUTHORITY to maintain the SACRED TRADITION of racial PURITY, stratification and separation.<br />Haidt admits he is a liberal atheist with a moral matrix that mutes the stirrings of loyalty, authority and the sacred in his moral judgements. But as you so eloquently point out, he dodges the question of how we should value moral matrixes. As I look at just the four changes above and consider dozens of others like them, I think it is the liberal moral matrix that made our society more fair, more caring, more free, more livable and I dare I say, more moral. I can only wonder if Hiadt feels the same way. Given he’s a liberal I suspect he does, but it would have been far more satisfying if he had summoned the fortitude to say as much in his otherwise brilliant book.Alan Jeskinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17519917101626373103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-87238709696575065512015-07-03T07:36:34.163-07:002015-07-03T07:36:34.163-07:00Thanks for the links. Some of those were new to me...Thanks for the links. Some of those were new to me. Interesting stuff.<br /><br />I&#39;ve been following Christina Hoff Sommers for a while now. She&#39;s always worth listening to.Chad Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00858444296164695836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-86847165084378832832015-06-24T12:26:45.600-07:002015-06-24T12:26:45.600-07:00Hi Chad,
My take is that identity politics is get...Hi Chad, <br />My take is that identity politics is getting virulent because cable news and various websites have learned that a heated controversy reliably grabs people&#39;s attention. And we tend to make the grievous error of thinking if we&#39;re arguing for good causes we aren&#39;t doing any harm. It&#39;s a recipe for uncritical acceptance of Manichean, essentially tribal ideologies. It&#39;s no coincidence the popular sites focus on celebrities, sex, gender, race, and various activist causes. Those are natural sweet spots.<br /><br />But there is some cause for optimism I think. Beginning with Jonathan Chait&#39;s New York Magazine piece, &quot;Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say,&quot; a lot of people have been discussing it as a problem. How much traction they&#39;ll get is hard to predict. <br /><br />Chait&#39;s article: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html<br />Here&#39;s another really good one by Edward Schlosser, with lots of other good links: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid<br />And here&#39;s a discussion on the BBC&#39;s Moral Maze I listened to just yesterday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05y0ql1<br />And of course there&#39;s always Christina Hoff Sommers, whose Youtube channel should be a required subscription for anyone discussing gender in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ewU33EdNnMDennis Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14117600152850796357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444314885639791581.post-63681471254259391122015-06-23T15:50:23.221-07:002015-06-23T15:50:23.221-07:00I&#39;m tired of identity politics and gender hyst...I&#39;m tired of identity politics and gender hysteria. I try to laugh at it - and I do laugh at it, because when it&#39;s not doing any harm it can be pretty funny - but some days I just can&#39;t help but despair. I was borderline apoplectic over the Tim Hunt debacle the other day. It stops being funny when a real person&#39;s life is ruined.<br /><br />How far do you think this will go? Most days, I&#39;m convinced that the pomo/hipster/SJW types are a vocal minority and public opinion is starting to turn against them. But sometimes this stuff seems to run so deep that I&#39;m afraid the conservative doomsayers are right and that the radical left is going to ruin Western civilization. I&#39;m generally optimistic about modernity and the future of human progress, but postmodernism makes me wonder.<br /><br />Keep up the good work. I haven&#39;t had the chance to comment on your last few posts. Too much to say and not enough time to say it.<br /><br />I&#39;m looking forward to seeing this dumb movie.Chad Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00858444296164695836noreply@blogger.com